Re: Radon Health Hazard, Myth or Realit

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

> On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, John Goldsmith wrote:
> 
> > In due course, I shall.
> >           John Goldsmith
> 
>         I don't want to rush you, but my paper was published almost 3
> years ago. How long is "in due course"?

I'd note that the issue predates that by considerably more than 3 years. I
object to Dr. Goldsmith's recent series of purely pejorative, unfounded,
mischaracterizations of Bernie and his work on this list. 

I'm especially interested to see this magic answer since there's not been a
single substantive technical criticism of Cohen's data or analysis from the
$millions of government-funded epidemiologists committed to this effort over
the last 5 years or so. 

Note that we are waiting for about the last 6 months of extreme editorial
effort for the imminent release of BEIR VI to make an essentially unfounded
statement that "case-control studies are better than ecological studies"
(which is patently not true when you don't know the dose with some precision,
which is why case-control studies can't produce competent results for radon),
but that the effort is to show that because case-control studies are all over
the map "we will use the high doses from [extremely poor and biased] uranium
miner studies" to project deaths from residential radon concentrations to
support our government funders in fabricating justification for continued
self-serving radiation protection disinformation to the gullible public and
taxpayers. 

I'm even more interested in the process by which epidemiology "science" can
obfuscate plain data and straight-forward statistical analysis, and tests for
confounding factors, to produce a pre-determined result as announced by Dr.
Goldsmith on behalf of funding agencies. We usually only see the results,
perhaps this time we can see the sausage being made!? :-) 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com